As if they were wiser than God

did God set a universal standard by how Israel was divided right after Moses' death or was it specific for that time period. If you take the former view, which I believe you do, you could look at it as an argument against collectivism, which really isn't singled out here, but then you could draw other parallels such as that of segregation.

If we take the latter view, then the great commission makes more sense because it doesn't say to stay in your group but to go out into the world. In addition, the collectivism practiced at the end of Acts 4 makes sense. Some argue that it wasn't collectivism because it was voluntary. I think that the voluntary nature of the collectivism just makes one form collectivism and that no one considered what he had was his own tells us that this was a form of collectivism.

In addition, we see a progression of God's community that follows the progression of God's revelation in the Bible. That as God was the God of individual families, He then became the God of a collection of tribes which became a nation which became a kingdom and then, through the great commission, He became the God of the all believers dispersed throughout the world. Having this view, I don't see collectivism being addressed in the passage you are referring to.

In addition, there are many forms of collectivism that exist on a continuum rather than being the polar opposite of private ownership.

Thanks for the correction about Moses; I will change it to Joshua.

What is taught from God’s dealing with Israel is in the 1689 Confession described as “general equity”, meaning all nations can benefit from these principles without adopting a strict adherence to the Mosaic economy. I have given examples related to allowing the poor to glean the fields and honoring the purity of young women.

Are you familiar with William Hendriksen’s view of Revelation given in his book ‘More Than Conquerors’? His perspective is where I’m coming from. The real churches in Revelation 2 & 3 are representative and characteristic of the churches throughout the New Covenant millennium. I remind you of Paul’s exhortation to the churches to continue in the faith…

“We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God.” [Acts 14:21-23]

The wife and I teach the Senior High sunday school and we have studied Revelation twice. The first time we used Hendricksen's book "More Than Conquerors" The last time we use Poythrus's (not sure of how to spell his name) book.

I must thank you again.

I had heard of Poythress, but was unfamiliar with his book on Revelation, ‘The Returning King’. I found this link to an online copy…

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Returning_Ki ng/BRvCIntro1a.htm

Looks like you are using some good material in your class. These books should be required reading for a philosophy of history from God’s perspective.

I had Poythress in class and the discussion was the disagreement between dispensationalists and covenant theologians. He stopped in the middle of lecture to pray for good and peaceful relations between the two groups.

One of the lessons I learned from seminary was that the professors not only knew the content, they knew how to engage others graciously--that is they knew how to do so most of the time. The students, though, because they were just learning the material were too rigid to be gracious.

Before the historic faith was graciously given to me, I needed someone to clobber me across the head with a 2X4. Now I am thankful for the not so gracious truth teller who got my attention. Scofieldism is a plague on the church and needs to be exposed as such.

Peaceful relations are one thing, but there can be no compromise with such errors in the gospel message. We are called to contend for the faith without being contentious. We can probably agree that grace is the greatest principle of reform in such things.

Certainly God's sovereignty can use, not just overcome, our flaws. But we are not called to prove that God is sovereign despite our behavior, we are to show to others the grace that God has shown us in Christ. So I do feel uncomfortable with the 2 x 4 approach.

Nice post, Valiant. You are right to point out the failures of collectivism in the past. The story of Willian Bradford makes a good point. Private property and being able to enjoy the fruits of one's labor is tantamount to the success of a society, god given or otherwise. The follies of collectivism are shown in places other than the bible.

Take a very different culture with very different spritual beliefs. In the periods of the Han and Tang dynasty in China, peasant farmers were expected to farm large plots of land with only a small single plot for themselves. This did okay at first, but as population grew the inefficiency of collectivism caught up with them. When the people were not able to keep the fruits of their labor it triggered unrest. It led to uprisings like the An Lushan rebellion, which brought an end to one of China's golden ages. Many say it set the country back centuries and it didn't recover until the Song dynasty.

Most people don't use this example as an argument for property rights. The way land was used in the bible was in many ways ahead of its time. Leaving families to till their own fields and enjoy the fruits of their labor was a step above the more feudal systems that developed in most ancient and medieval societies. Other societies without the influence of Christianity reaped the benefits as well, such as Japan during the Meiji era and the pre-fuedal area. It shows the appeal of life, liberty, and property through the ages and across cultures.

Nathan to King David: “You are the man!” [2 Samuel 12]

Peter to the Jews: “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” [Acts 2]

Stephen to the Jews: “You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you now have become the betrayers and murderers, who have received the law by the direction of angels and have not kept it.” [Acts 7]

Paul to the preachers of another gospel: “If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” [Galatians 1]

Paul to Peter: “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? [Galatians 2]

Thanks for writing something that I can respond to. You say…

“It shows the appeal of life, liberty, and property through the ages and across cultures.”


The point of the article is that pagan philosophy is wrong and continues to be wrong about the world and human nature. Your examples from the ancient cultures reinforce a couple of things in my thinking.

All the ancient cultures have a common link to truth back to Noah, the preacher of righteousness. I have had some interest in the ancient Eastern cultures and the ancient cultures of the American continents. The decline into paganism correlates to the progression of time and distance away from Noah and his descendants.

All men are image bearers of the righteous God and Creator. Even though men have defiled themselves, they still have a remnant of the Law manifest in their conscience telling them what is right and wrong. While fallen, men are still image bearers and capable of noble thinking and acting according to his conscience.

The spiral degeneration into paganism results when men suppress what is revealed in nature about the Creator and in their conscience about righteousness.

Valiant, I wouldn't say collectivism is a pagan philosophy nor is it indicative of the success of a culture. Bear in mind cultures like China and Japan were able to outlast many of the old empires in the west and did develop a sophistication that was ahead of their time. It's also worth noting that this sophistication made certain cultures like China and India very successful, much more so than areas like Medieval Europe up until the industrial era. But as you referenced in your article, the limits of collectivist policies held them back.

There is also cultural factors to consider. Some cultures, like those of China and Africa, have a more collective mindset. It has been shown in cultural studies that certain societies favor colletivist thinking more than others. That is why policies like property rights don't always take hold. But where it starts to break down is when the state gets involved. Collectivist mindsets do well on a community level, but on a national level it leads to the kind of corruption you mentioned. That is why states that protect the individual and leave them free to choose collectivist practices in their own community works better than state imposed collectivism.

State imposed collectivism will always fall short because it denies individuals their right to follow their own path through their community, family, and spiritual mediums. Other factors do come into play, but the revolutionary ideas concerning natural rights would have been much harder to develop in a collectivist cultural mindset. These most rational of principles, which can be traced to the bible and so many other successful societies in the past, are at the heart of making a prosperous society and a just society.

And what was said and what were the contexts of those verses?

For Nathan, he didn't insult be he did tell a story that showed David a picture of himself.

Peter to the Jews in Acts 2, hardly insulting but factual and straight to the point.

Acts 7, Stephen was talking to those who basically put him on trial. This is the only one you listed that is insulting. Then again, he was talking to those who were about to kill him.

Gal 1, No insults but a warning not to follow the example of those who added to the Gospel so that one would have to both have faith and rely on the works of the law to be a full follower of Jesus. See Frederick Dale Bruner's book, "A Theology Of The Holy Spirit" for further explanation.

Gal 2, Paul is challenging Peter to be consistent.

What we can note about your 2 x 4's is that, for the most part, they follow a different standard that the world's 2 x 4's.

I have defined my use of 2X4 by the context of those examples. There is nothing to argue here.

David and Peter repented, the Jews were offended. The condition of a man's heart is revealed by his response to the truth.